RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No.75 of 1980 filed by Soofi Muhammad Din and others, Civil Appeal No.189 of 1980 filed by Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain, Civil Appeal No.190 of 1980 filed by Qazi Abbas Hussain and a Petition for Leave to Appeal No.120-R of 1987 filed by Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others. Since the matters are somewhat interconnected these appeals and the petition can fairly and justly be disposed of together.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in 1955-56 roughly 62 Kanals 2 Marlas of urban agricultural land was allotted to late Qazi Bashir Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain, as urban agricultural land against his verified claim. This land was confirmed in 1960 and RL-II was issued in favour of the late Qazi Bashir Hussain. After the allottee's death, the said land was mutated in 1966 in favour of Oazi Syed Abbas Hussain.
3. On 14-9-1909 one Muhammad Inayat made an application for reservation of land measuring 20 Kanals 3 Marlas covered by Khasras Nos. 3678, 3688 and 3689 under the Reservation Scheme, which was then temporarily in force. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner ordered the reservation of the same in favour of Muhammad Inayat on the said date. Later a P.T.O. And P.T.D. Was issued in his favour by the Settlement Department. Being aggrieved by the transfer, Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain filed Writ Petition No.1248-R of 1975 in the High Court, which alongwith a number of writ petitions, was disposed of by the High Court on 29-4-1976 and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer to re-examine the question regarding the status of the land. On remand, the Notified Officer, by his judgment dated 30-7-1977, held that as the reservation in this case could have only been made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and not by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the reservation was not valid. He held that the cancelled area of Muhammad Inayat alongwith the cancelled areas of three other persons, was potential area and he, therefore, directed that the same may be disposed of in the form of smaller plots through auction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, Muhammad Inayat filed a Writ Petition No.1444-R of 1977, which was dismissed by the High Court on 27-2-1980. The High Court held that the area cancelled from Muhammad Inayat would divert to Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain. Since a part, of the land allotted to Muhammad Inayat also formed part of the area of the plots sustained in favour of Abdul Haq Sethi and Abdul Majid and also formed part of the original area allotted to Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain the Civil Appeal No.190 of 1980 filed by Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain against Muhammad Inayat, Abdul Haq Sethi and Rifat Sultana, covering the dispute regarding Khasra Nos.3688 and 3689 is now before us.
4. Again in 1960 urban agricultural land was allotted to one Abdullah Joo as a Jammu and Kashmir displaced person. He was allotted 15 Kanals 13 Marlas in the civil station of Jhelum and 19 Kanals 17 Marlas in village Piran Gheb. In 1965 the land allotted in Piran Gheb was reduced to 4 Kanals 17 Marlas, whereas the rest was cancelled. The said 4 Kanals 17 Marlas of land comprised Khasra Nos.
3728, 3729, 3730, 3692/2 and 4001/1011/2. On 11-1-1962 a plot No. 81-288/289 comprising Khasra Nos.3671 and 3692 was auctioned in favour of one Soofi Muhammad Din, which included a portion of Khasra No.3692/2 allotted to Abdullah Joo. Soofi Muhammad Din then moved the Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the allotment of Abdullah Joo, which however was rejected on 20-11-1969. Soofi Muhammad Din thereupon challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.165-R of 1971. This writ petition, alongwith a number of writ petitions challenging the fraudulent allotment obtained by Soofi Muhammad Din, was disposed of by the High Court on 29-4-1976 and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer to re-examine the question regarding the status of the land.
On remand, the Notified Officer, by his judgment dated 30-7-1977, found that the auction in favour of Muhammad Din was based upon forged documentation. He therefore, held that the said area was potential area and should be reauctioned. He, therefore, set aside the auction made in favour of Soofi Muhammad Din. Neither Abdullah Joo nor his legal heirs, who are now petitioners in C.RS.L.A. No.120-R of 1987, challenged the said judgment. However, the judgment of the Notified Officer was challenged by a number of persons, including Soofi Muhammad Din in Writ Petition No.1438-R of 1977, which was dismissed by the High Court, against which CA.75 of 1980 filed by Soofi Muhammad Din and others is before us. On behalf of Ghulam Fatima and others, petitioners in C.P.S.L.A. No. 120-R/87, it is submitted that as Soofi Muhammad Din's Appeal No. C.A. 75 of 1980 is before us, in which the petitioners have been imp leaded as respondents Nos.3 to 7, leave should be granted, as arguments of all parties have been heard in full, and the petitioners' appeal should be disposed of together with the appeal of Soofi Muhammad Din.
5. On 11-1-1962 Plot No.B-l.-23-S-17 measuring 4 Kanals 8 Marlas comprising Khasra No.3689 was auctioned in favour of Abdul Haq Sethi, which auction was confirmed on 13-2-1962. It transpired that the said plot was also auctioned in favour of Mst. Iffat Sultana as Plot No.B-1-25-S-33. Since the plot comprised part of Khasra No.3689, which was originally allotted to Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain, litigation ensued between the parties in various Courts which led to Writ Petition No.405-R of 1971 being filed by Abdul Haq Sethi in the High Court, which with 9ther writ petitions, was disposed on 29-4-1976 and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer to re-examine the question regarding the status of the land. On remand, the Notified Officer, by his judgment, dated 30-7-1977, found that auction in favour of Abdul Haq Sethi was based upon forged documents. He, therefore, set aside the auction made in favour of Abdul Haq Sethi. He held that the cancelled area of Abdul Haq Sethi, alongwith cancelled areas of three other persons, was potential area and he, therefore, directed that the same may be disposed of in the form of smaller plots through auction. Abdul Haq Sethi thereupon filed Writ Petition No.1402-R of 1977 and Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain filed Writ Petition No.533-R of 1976 against the said judgment. The High Court, by its judgment, dated 27-2-1980, accepted writ petition of Abdul Haq Sethi and dismissed that of Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain. The appeal (Civil Appeal No.190 of 1980) filed by Syed Abbas Hussain against the judgment of the High Court dated 27-2-1980 is now before us for disposal.
6. On 11-1-1962, Plot No.Bl-288/289 measuring 13 Kanals 10 Marlas covering Khasra Nos.3671 and 3692 was auctioned in favour of Soofi Muhammad Din, which auction was confirmed by Mr. Wali Muhammad Nagar, Additional Settlement Commissioner on 7-8-1968 and P.T.D. Was issued to the auction-purchaser on 12-4-1969, after he had paid the full transfer price and settlement fee on 1-4- 1969. Being aggrieved by the said auction and confirmation, Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain filed an appeal against the said auction and confirmation. Mr. Wali Muhammad Nagar, Additional Settlement Commissioner heard the appeal, condoned the delay and held the land to be non- agricultural and dismissed the appeal on 31-1-1970. Against this order, Soot Muhammad Din filed Writ Petition No.165-R of 1971. This writ petition, alongwith a number of other writ petitions, was disposed of by the High Court on 29-4-1976 and the case remanded to the Notified Officer to inter alia re-examine the question regarding the status of the land. On remand the Notified Officer, by his judgment dated 30-7-1977, found that the land had been used for non-agricultural purpose, but the auction in favour of Soofi Muhammad Din was based upon forged documentation. He, therefore, set aside the auction made in favour of Soofi Muhammad Din. He held that the cancelled area of Soofi Muhammad Din, alongwith the cancelled areas of three other persons, was potential area and he, therefore, directed that the same may be disposed of in the form of smaller plots through auction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, Soofi Muhammad Din filed Writ Petition No.1438-R of 1977 which was dismissed by the High Court on 27-2-1980. The High Court ordered that the area cancelled from Soofi Muhammad Din would revert to Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain, Civil Appeal No.75 of 1980 filed by Soofi Muhammad Din against this judgment is also before us for disposal.
7. On 14-1-1971 Plot No.Bl-23-S-19 measuring 9 Kanals 10 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.3687 and 3688 was auction in favour of Abdul Majid, which auction was confirmed on 13-2-1972. The price having been paid on 23-8-1975, P.T.D. Was issued to Abdul Majid on 12-9-1975. Being aggrieved by the said auction Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain filed Writ Petition No.988-R of 1975, which with other writ petitions, was disposed of by the High Court on 29-4-1976 and the case remanded to the Notified Officer to re-examine the question regarding the status of the land. On remand, the Notified Officer, by his judgment, dated 30-7-1977, found that the auction in favour of Abdul Majid was based upon forged documentation. He therefore, set aside the auction made in favour of Abdul Majid. He held that the cancelled area of Abdul Majid, alongwith the cancelled areas of three other persons, was potential area and he, therefore, directed that the same may be disposed of in the form of smaller plots through auction. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, Abdul Majid filed Writ Petition No.454- R of 1977 and Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain filed Writ Petition No.535-R of 1977. The High Court on 27-2- 1980 accepted the writ petition of Abdul Majid, Civil Appeal No.189 of 1980 riled by Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain against the said judgment is also before us for disposal.
8. We will now take up each one of the civil appeals and the petition for leave to appeal separately.
Civil Anneal No.75 of 1980
9. Civil Appeal No. C.A.75 of 1980 has been filed by Soofi Muhammad Din and others. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that the order of the High Court dated 29-4-1976 passed on Soot Muhammad Din's Writ Petition No.165-R of 1977 remanded the case to the Notified Officer to re- examine the question regarding the status of the land, the Notified Officer was debarred from going into all other questions. It is submitted that once the Notified Officer came to the conclusion that the area in dispute was not agricultural land, the auction in favour of Soofi Muhammad Din appellant became legal and valid and the allotment of the said area in favour of the predecessor- in-interest of Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain became void. It is submitted that the Notified Officer not only went beyond the scope of remand, but did not give any opportunity to the appellant to meet the evidence recorded by him in Muhammad Inayat's case which he used against Soofi Muhammad Din, appellant. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge of the High Court also overlooked this aspect of the case. It is next contended that almost on similar facts the learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld the P.T.D. Issued in favour of Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi, notwithstanding allegedly forged signature of Abdul Hameed, Assistant Accounts Officer, and of Wali Muhammad Khan Nagra, Additional Settlement Commissioner, being found on the records of their case. It is lastly submitted that after the issuance of P.T.D. The Settlement Authorities became functus officio and the same could not be set aside at all.
10. On behalf of Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain respondent it is submitted that on the basis of the terms and conditions applicable for auction of shops, the intending bidders had to deposit one-fourth of the earnest money, which was not done in the instant case, as the whole proceedings relating to auction were forged and manipulated, as found by the Notified Officer on 30-7-1977. It is further submitted that the confirmation of the sale after 6-1/2 years also shows that the earlier proceedings were forged and fabricated. It is submitted that the High Court and the Notified Officer having found that the auction in favour of Soofi Muhammad Din was the result of fraud and forgery, the concurrent findings of fact in this connection should not be disturbed. In this connection the learned counsel relies upon Mst. Ismat Khanum Toor v. Rao Riaz Ali Khan and 2 others (1978 SCMR 335). It is lastly submitted that Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain is still in possession of the disputed land and the appeal should not be accepted, as it would amount to permitting the appellant to secure an illegal gain, which should not be permitted by the Court.
11. On behalf of Ghulam Fatima and others, respondents Nos.3 to 7, who are the legal heirs of Abdullah Joo, it is submitted that the dispute between them and the petitioners relates to Khasra No.3692/2 measuring 4 Kanals 2 Marlas which is a part of the 4 Kanals 17 Marlas which was allotted to them in village Piran Gheb. It is submitted that Banjar Qadeem godown in agricultural areas amounts to nothing more than open agricultural land utilised for stocking wood and agricultural produce and the character of the said land as agricultural is not lost or-diminished. 1t is submitted that when Soofi Muhammad Din appellant had earlier moved the Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of Abdullah Joo, the said petition was rejected on 20- 11-1969.
Civil Appeals Nos. 189 and 190 of 1980
13. Civil Appeal No.189 of 1980 has been filed by Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain against Abdul Majid son of Ghulam Muhammad and Abdul Majid son of Ghulam Oadir respondents and Civil Appeal No, 190 of 1980 has been filed by Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain against Abdul Haq Sethi, Mst. Iffat Sultana and Muhammad Inayat respondents. 1n the first appeal the appellant challenges the auction of Plot No.Bl-23-S-19 measuring 9 Kanals 10 Marlas covered by Khasra Nos.3687 and 3688 in favour of Abdul Majid and Abdul Majid Khokhar respondents. It is submitted that the dispute presently relates to only 4 Kanals and 1 Marla covered by Khasra No.3688. In the second appeal, the appellant challenges the auction of Plot No.Bl-25-S-17 measuring 4 Kanals and 8 Marlas comprising Khasra'
No.3689 in favour of Abdul Haq Sethi and Mst. Iffat Sultana and the reservation of land measuring 20 Kanals 3 Marlas covered by Khasras Nos.3687, 3688 and 3689 under the Reservation Scheme made in favour of Muhammad Inayat in 1960.
14. In respect of these two appeals on behalf of the appellant, it submitted that in 1955-56 roughly fit Kanals 2 Marlas of urban agricultural land was allotted to late Qazi Bashir Hussain predecessor- in-interest of the appellant, against his verified claim. This land was confirmed in 1960 and RL-11 was issued in favour of Qazi Bashir Hussain. After the allottee's death the said land was mutated in 1960 in favour of Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain. It is submitted that no part of the said confirmed area having ever been cancelled from the name of the appellant, the transfers and auctions in favour of the respondents are a nullity and void. It is further submitted that Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi did not deposit 1/4th of the reserved price as earnest money before bidding at the auctions and the finding of the Notified Officer dated 30-7-1977 holding that the auctions in favour of Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi were forged and fabricated, admits of -no exception and the learned Single Judge of the High Court legally erred in law and on facts in rejecting the findings of the Notified Officer as regards the auctions being void. It is also submitted that as the auctions in favour of Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi were without notice to appellant and his late father and before any valid order was passed cancelling the areas to be auctioned from the allotment already made in favour of the appellant's father, the auctions were void. It is further contended that the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) in appeal re: Soofi Muhammad Din v. Abdullah Joo, which he decided on 20-11-1969, had held that Khasras Nos.3671 and 3692 which were shown in the Jamabandi as Banjar Qadeem godown were no more than open lands used without enclosures used as jumping grounds for timber and the land, therefore, was agricultural. It is submitted that this finding is the correct view as regards the nature of the two disputed Khasras and that the Notified Officer and the learned Single Judge of the High Court erred in holding that the said Khasras were non-agricultural. As regards the reservation made in favour of Muhammad Inayat in 1960 it is submitted that the Notified Officer rightly treated the said reservation as void, because the reservation had not been made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and since Muhammad Inayat's claim has been rejected by the learned single Judge of the High Court and the said respondent has not preferred any appeal before this Court against the rejection, the land which has been allowed to remain with the appellant, should not be interfered with in these circumstances, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the auctions in favour of Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi which have been held valid by the learned Single Judge should be set aside and the lands auctioned to them should be allowed to revert to the appellant, as in the case of Muhammad Inayat respondent.
15. On behalf of Abdul Majid, Abdul Majid Khokhar and Abdul Haq Sethi respondents, it is submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact that the areas transferred to the said respondents were potential urban sites and non-agricultural and that, therefore, their allotment to the appellant as agricultural land was void. Since the appellant was not entitled to the same, it is submitted that the matter should be treated as confined between the auction-purchasers and the Settlement Department and the appellant has no right to challenge the same, considering that the Settlement Department neither challenged the auctions before the High Court nor are challenging the same before the Supreme Court. 1t is submitted on the basis of Survey Register of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's Office for the year 1947-48 (appearing at page 62 of the paper book in Civil Appeal 189 of 1980) that property under Khasras Nos.3671, 3687, 3688 and .3692 was situate in Piran Ghaib, Mohallah of Jhelum, and property was in the occupation of the Speeding Company as `godown'. It is, therefore, contended that the finding of the Notified Officer that the land auctioned in favour of the said respondents were potential urban areas and the findings of the learned Single Judge that the P.T.Ds. Having been validly issued to the respondents, the Settlement Department could not go behind the same, the transfers in favour of the respondents are unassailable. It is further contended that Abdul Majid, Assistant Accounts Officer, was only summoned to give evidence in the case of one Muhammad Inayat, but his evidence was illegally considered in respect of the respondents' cases, which was validly rejected by the learned Single Judge It is further submitted that the observation of the Notified officer that the signatures of Mr. Wali Muhammad Khan Nagar, Additional Settlement Commissioner, on the records of the cases were forged, has no basis, as the said officer was never summoned so as to confront him with his signatures. It is lastly submitted that the P.T.Ds. Having been issued in favour of the respondents, the same cannot be now challenged for fraud, much less clerical mistakes. In this connection, Aminuddin v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1973 SCMR 624) is referred.
16. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the different appellants and the respondents in these cases and have also perused the record.
Before we deal with these appeals separately, it is necessary to first deal with one important argument addressed on behalf of certain parties, namely, that the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 27-2-1980 having remanded a number of writ petitions for rehearing to the Notified Officer, only did so for the purposes of determining the status of the land. We are afraid this is not the correct position. When these writ petitions came up before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, it was pleaded by a number of petitioners that their lands had been put to auction without any notice to them or without their being heard. The parties also disputed the status of the land.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court thereupon held, as is clear from his judgment, dated 27-2-1980, that three points emerged for consideration. First, whether the areas allotted in favour of Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain's father could have been put to auction, without setting aside the allotment, in accordance with law, and without notice to the allottee, which undeniably had not been sent. Second, if the areas in dispute were used for purposes other than agricultural, whether they would not be agricultural lands and the allotment in favour of Qazi Bashir Hussain and his son would be void and the disposal of the same by auction would be -valid. Third, where the areas stood transferred in favour of more than one person, the matter required to be sorted out by the relevant authorities. In these circumstances, the learned Judge remanded the cases to the Notified Officer to look into all these matters, after notice to all the parties concerned, in the light of the observation made by him and to pass proper orders in accordance with law. The action, therefore, the Notified Officer in looking into all these matters and the objections of the different parties vis-a- vis the others, was legal and in order. It is, therefore, incorrect to suggest that he was only directed to determine the status of the property and nothing 'further.
Civil Appeal No.75 of 1980
17. We now take up Civil Appeal No.75 of 1980 filed by Soofi Muhammad Din and others. From the Notified Officer's judgment dated 30-7-1977 it is admitted fact that Khasra Nos.3671 and 3692 have been found in the Special Jamabandi as `Banjer Qadeem Godown'. The survey register for the year 1947-48 (at page 62 of the paper book in Civil Appeal 189 of 1980) also refers to Khasras Nos.3671, 3687, 3688 and 3692 as being part of the property occupied by Speding Company as `godown'.
The finding of fact that the plot auctioned in favour of Soofi Muhammad Din constitutes urban property has not been controverted by the learned Single Judge. The only basis on which the learned Single Judge refused to recognize the claim of the appellant was that he had not deposited the amount required from locals before participating in the auction and that the signature of Mr. Wali Muhammad Khan Nagar, Additional Settlement Commissioner, who confirmed the auction, was not his, but was a forged one. The learned Single Judge also held that the area of the plot auctioned in favour of the appellant also appeared too large. 1t is true that the appellant was not able to show that he deposited in advance the amount as required from locals before participating in the auction, but the question that calls for consideration is whether, notwithstanding this defect, the auction was valid and properly confirmed? The Notified Officer compared the specimen signature taken of one Abdul Majid, Assistant Accounts Officer on the case file of one Muhammad Inayat with his signature on the case rile of Soofi Muhammad Din and held his signature on the latter file to be forged. It is not understood how this method could have been used against Soofi Muhammad Din to hold that the signature of the said Abdul Majid, Assistant Accounts Officer, on the file of this appellant was a forged one. Abdul Majid was not confronted with his own signature appearing on the file of Soofi Muhammad Din. Further, the Notified Officer on the basis of his own personal impression, held the signature of Mr. Wali Muhammad Khan Nagar, Additional Settlement Commissioner, on the file of the appellant, also as forged, but stated nothing about the signature of Mr. Attaur Rahman, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which appeared on the file. Why Wali Muhammad Khan Nagar was not called as witness to disprove his signature, leaves much to be desired. In two similar cases covering Abdul, Haq Sethi and Abdul Majid, where the Notified Officer had also held that the signature of Mr. Wali Muhammad Khan Nagar, Additional Settlement Commissioner confirming authority, were not his, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had set aside that finding on the basis that the transfer price and the settlement fees had been paid by the auction-purchasers, that these deposits had been made after the challans for deposit had been approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who could not have approved the same if the auctions had not been confirmed, and that the Notified Officer had erred in not examining all the relevant facts of those cases and had been swa yed by his own observation about the signature of Mr. Wali Muhammad Khan Nagar, Additional Settlement Commissioner, being forged. The learned Single Judges in these two cases observed that as P.T.Ds. Had been issued to Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi, the Settlement Authorities had no right to go behind the same and interfere in the rights of the transferees. The learned Single Judge therefore, held in those cases that the auctions were publicly held, payments were made and that Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi were issued proper P.T.Ds. In the circumstances, the findings of the Notified Officer were set aside. The present case of Soofi Muhammad Din is not distinguishable from that of Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi. He has also produced photo copies of documents which show that the total price and the auction fee were paid on 23-8-1975 and that P.T.D.Was issued to him on 12-9-1975. It appears that the appellant was not properly aware of the situation which he had to meet before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, for otherwise he would have produced these documents before the learned Judge and received the same treatment. The g case of Soofi Muhammad Din is parallel to that of Abdul Majid and Abdul Haq Sethi and would have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge on the same basis, had the proper documents been produced before him. In these circumstances, we consider the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court rejecting the claim of Soofi Muhammad Din appellant to be without lawful authority. We, therefore, set the same aside and restore the auction made in his favour. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Civil Appeals Nos. 189 and 190 of 1980
18. We now take up Civil Appeals Nos. 189 and 190 of 1980 filed by Qazi Syed Abbas Hussain against Abdul Majid, Abdul Majid Khokhar, Abdul Haq Sethi, Mst. Lffat Sultana and Muhammad Inayat respondents. Copy of register Haqdaran Zamin for 1944-45 (at page 44 of paper book in Civil Appeal No.190 of 1980) shows Khasra No3689 in the occupation of Spedding Dinga Singh & Co. As Banjar Qadim. The assessm ent list of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum, for the year 1947- 48 (at page 46 of the paper book in Civil Appeal No.190 of 1980) shows Plot No.Bl-23-S-17 as `open plot Timber Depot No.17' with site measuring 4 Kanals 8 Marlas. These two documents cover Abdul Haq Sethis plot. The Survey Register for the year 1947-48 (at page 62 of the paper book in Civil Appeal No.189 of 1990) shows inter alia Khasra Nos.3687 and 3688 as in occupation of Spedding Co.
As `godown'. These Khasras cover Abdul Majid's plot. The Notified Officer in his order dated 30-7- 1977 held the areas auctioned in favour of Abdul Haq Sethi and Abdul Majid as potential urban sites. The learned Single Judge, by a well-considered judgment, held that the auctions had been property conducted and confirmed and that the said respondents had deposited the price, where after P.T.Ds. Had been issued in their favour, which the Settlement Authorities could not now challenge and interfere in the rights of the transferees. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge being based on a proper appraisal of the record and the law on the subject. Do not call for any interference. There being no merit in these appeals, the same are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Civil Petition No.120-R of 1987
19. We now take up the petition of Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others, legal heirs of the late Abdullah Joo, challenging the auction in favour of Soofi Muhammad Din. The petitioners challenged the judgment of the Notified Officer dated 30-7-1977 in Writ Petition (Writ Petition No.99-R of 1987) almost 10 years after the impugned judgment was passed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, therefore, dismissed the same on laches on 14-3-1987. No good grounds have been shown to justify any interference in the matter. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.